Fr. Paul Kramer Exposed Beliefs, Heresies and Practices

This article contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery.com

Fr. Paul Kramer, also known as Fr. Paul Leonard
Kramer, is a traditionalist layman falsely posing as a priest who currently
holds Benedict XVI as “Pope” after considering Francis an impostor and an antipope
(more on this below).

First of all, it should be pointed out that “Fr.” Gruner was
ordained in 1976, after Paul VI’s dubious New Rite of Ordination was
introduced. Nicholas Gruner’s good friend, “Fr.” Paul Leonard Kramer, told me
himself that he, Nicholas Gruner and “Fr.” Gregory Hesse were all ordained in
the New Rite. Thus, none of them can be considered valid priests.

Fr. Paul Kramer a Sedevacantist?

On November 28, 2013, it was reported that “Fr.” Paul
Leonard Kramer rejected Francis as an Antipope. Shortly thereafter, however, it
was reported that “Fr.” Kramer announced that Benedict XVI is still the
reigning “Pope” instead of Francis (see Update on "Fr." Kramer's
Rejection of Francis below).

According to reports, a ‘traditionalist priest’, who for a
long time has been closely affiliated with Nicholas Gruner, has taken the
sedevacantist position. Apparently Francis’ newest document (which contains a
number of massive heresies) was the clincher. Paul Leonard Kramer allegedly
posted this on his Facebook page:

“Pope” Francis in Evangelii
Gaudium n. 247: “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their
covenant with God has never been revoked”. This text is an explicit profession
of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic definition of Pope Eugenius
III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the
supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly
and explicitly citing the definition of Florence, to wit, that the Mosaic
covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. I have been saying for years that
when a “pope” will officially teach explicit and clear heresy flatly
contradicting the infallibly defined dogma of the Catholic faith, then you will
know that he is the false pope prophecied in many Church approved prophecies
and Marian apparitions. St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alohonsus Liguori, St.
Antoninus and Pope Innocent III all teach that when the pope demonstrates
himself to be a manifest heretic, i.e. a plainly manifested public heretic, he
ceases to be pope (or, if already was a public heretic he was invalidly
elected) because he is not a Catholic — not a member of the Catholic Church.
Bellarmine explains that the Roman Pontiff is the visible head of the Church,
and the head is a member. One who is not a member cannot be the head, and
therefore the election to the supreme pontificate of a public heretic is
canonically null & void. The heresy of Bergoglio in no. 247 is such a clear
cut case of manifest, public heresy, expressed in stark, unequivocal terms,
that it can be said without doubt that if this proposition of no. 247 is not
manifestly heretical, then nothing else can be said to be so. It is morally
impossible that one who manifestly displays such clearly expressed contempt for
a defined dogma of faith by plainly denying it, can be believed to validly hold
the office of Roman Pontiff. St. Francis of Assisi foretold of the
uncanonically elected pope who would not be “a true pastor but a destroyer”.
Bergoglio plainly fits the description.

Now, it must be made clear that Kramer is not a true
Catholic. He holds heresies on the salvation dogma; he was ordained in the
invalid New Rite of Ordination; and he has not (as far as we know) rejected the
previous Vatican II antipopes. He also doesn’t seem to realize that the heresy
he mentions in his post (which convinced him that Francis is not pope) was
taught in Vatican II itself and by the other previous Vatican II antipopes.

For instance, Antipope John Paul II has repeatedly
repudiated this dogma, a dogma taught by the Catholic Church for 2000 years,
defined infallibly by the Council of Florence, and affirmed clearly by Pope
Benedict XIV.

In an address to Jews in West Germany, Nov. 17, 1980, Antipope
John Paul II spoke of quote, “the Old Covenant, never revoked by God…”

Antipope John Paul II, New
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 121: “… for the Old Covenant
has never been revoked.”

When Vatican II teaches that Jews, despite not belonging to
the Church, are not to be considered as rejected by God, that means they remain
in a valid covenant with God and can be saved. That’s also how the apostates in
the Vatican II sect understood and implemented Nostra Aetate. Francis’ heresy
on the Old Covenant is simply a reiteration of the doctrine of Nostra Aetate
and the statements of the previous antipopes. It is also a further
formalization of that heresy as the official doctrine of the Counter Church,
for Francis teaches it openly in an Apostolic Exhortation addressed to the
entire Church.

Vatican II Declaration, Nostra
Aetate (#4): “Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews
should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such
views followed from the holy scriptures.”

Without even going into details, it should be obvious to all
that the statement of Nostra Aetate (#4) is heretical. Jews are rejected
by God, because all who reject Jesus Christ are denied by God. This is a truth
that Our Lord specifically revealed in Sacred Scripture.

Matthew 10:33: “But he that
shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is
in heaven.”

The word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. Look it
up in the dictionary. Therefore, Vatican II and its antipopes is denying
the divinely revealed truth of Matthew 10:33: he who denies Our Lord is
rejected by Him. Thus, without even going farther into detail, one should
easily see that Vatican II teaches blatant heresy in Nostra Aetate #4.

But this heresy gets even worse when one considers that the
Council of Florence Bull Cantate Dominois a dogmatic definition on
individuals who have a view on Our Lord Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity that
is contrary to that of the Church (e.g., Jews, etc.). The Council of
Florence solemnly defines that whoever has a view contrary to the Church’s
teaching on Our Lord and the Trinity (e.g., the Jews) is condemned and rejected.
Note: the Council is not merely saying that the view contrary to Our Lord
is rejected and condemned, but that the individual (e.g., the Jew) is condemned
and rejected!

Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, Bull Cantate Domino, 1442, ex cathedra: “…the holy Roman
Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Savior, firmly believes, professes
and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and
Holy Spirit… Therefore it [the Holy Roman Church] condemns, rejects,
anathematizes and declares to be outside the Body of Christ, which is the
Church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views.”

By the way, Francis’ encyclical Evangelii Gaudium
contains numerous other heresies as well, such as the heresy that “the
followers of Islam… together with us they adore the one, merciful God, who will
judge humanity on the last day” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 252) and that “Non-Christians
[such as atheists and pagans], by God’s gracious initiative, when they are
faithful to their own consciences, can live “justified by the grace of God”,
and thus be “associated to the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ”… to the
sacramental dimension of sanctifying grace... to live our own beliefs”
(Evangelii Gaudium, # 254). Concerning the Jews, Francis went on to say: “As
Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include
the Jews among those called to turn from idols [false gods] and to serve the
true God [i.e., Francis says Jews are not to be considered to be as those who
turn from false gods in order to serve the true God Jesus Christ and the
Trinity since he already believes they serve the true God!]… With them, we
believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his
revealed word” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 247)

Further, in his Apostolic Exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium,”
Francis professes that it’s admirable for Muslims to participate in daily
Islamic prayers and religious services (252). He professes that non-Christians
are justified by the grace of God (254), directly contrary to the Catholic
profession of faith and Catholic dogma that only Christians, that is, those
with the catholic faith can be justified. And, (254) of that document, Francis
also speaks of non-Christian rites, signs and expressions, in other words, the
false beliefs and wicked practices of non-Christian and pagan religions, as
“God’s working” and things which “the Holy Spirit raises up.” And in his
encyclical “Evangelii Gaudium” (255), Francis also professes that Religious
Freedom, whereby everyone has the right to promote any religious view in
public, is to be viewed a fundamental human right: “the importance of
respect for religious freedom, viewed as a fundamental human right. This
includes “the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to
manifest one’s beliefs in public” (Evangelii Gaudium, # 255).

But there were many other heresies taught by the antipopes
on various topics that were just as explicit as the one Kramer finds so
appalling. He should have been convinced a long time ago. In fact, years ago we
personally spoke with Kramer. In one of those conversations he expressed doubts
about the validity of John Paul II. However, his rejection of Antipope Francis
is interesting because it’s another example of how even some of the most
obstinate false traditionalists, who have misled so many for years, are now
finding Francis so indefensible that they must reject him as an antipope. It’s
a big embarrassment to the false traditionalist crowd.

Over the years Kramer has said some good things. We hope he
comes around to the true positions on all the issues. His paragraph is an
example of how simple it really should be for people to come to the correct
conclusion on Francis (i.e., that he’s without any doubt a heretical
non-Catholic antipope) if they are being even slightly honest about the
situation.

Update on "Fr." Kramer's Rejection of Francis

On November 28, 2013, it was reported that the well-known
resistance "traditionalist" "Fr." Paul Kramer, editor of The
Devil's Final Battle, had rejected Jorge Bergoglio's claim to be the Pope
of the Catholic Church and declared that the Holy See was vacant. Shortly
thereafter, however, Kramer began claiming that Benedict XVI -- officially the
"Pope Emeritus" -- was still reigning despite his
"resignation" effective February 28 of this year. Here is what Kramer
posted on his Facebook page the day after announcing "sede vacante":

The reason Kramer gives for his new position is that he
believes Ratzinger's resignation to have been invalid because it was obtained,
so he is convinced, through "coercion". In an interview conducted
with him, Kramer claims he has 'inside' information confirming Benedict's
resignation to have been forced. (Clearly, this position is entirely untenable,
as Benedict himself was never Pope for an instant, and the fact that Benedict
XVI himself acknowledges Francis as "Pope" and that his
"resignation" was by his own choice.) So this false position -- that
Benedict's "resignation" was invalid and he is still the
"legitimately" reigning "Pope", and Francis an imposter --
is an outrageous lie and falsehood! The bad willed heretics must just come up
with anything and any excuse just to still have a man dressed in robes to
follow.

Fr. Paul Kramer Evil Beliefs and Heresies Exposed

Paul Kramer will not admit that John Paul II is an antipope

“Fr.” Paul Kramer, in The
Fatima Crusader, Winter 2004, p. 32:“The Secret of Fatima tells us, Our
Lady tells us, the Mother of God reveals that the great apostasy in the Church
will begin from there, from the Vatican. We can therefore surmise, and it
has been prophesied down through the ages by the saints, that eventually Rome
will be taken over by an Anti-pope, who will be entirely without Catholic
faith, entirely heretical, unlike the present occupant of the See of Peter,
who in his heart wishes to preserve and save the Church, but in his intellect,
behaves as if he were the Church’s worst enemy, by promoting the very things
which will lead to the destruction of the Church.”

“Rome will be taken over by an Anti-pope, who will be
entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical…” Hmmm? Whom could
that possibly be? Could it be the man who removes the crucifixes from
Catholic churches and allows Voodoo high-priests to preach to the people
(referring to John Paul II)? Hmmm… could it be the man who declares that
all men are saved and that the Holy Ghost is responsible for false religions of
Satan? Hmmm… the man who kisses the Koran and asks St. John the Baptist
to protect Islam? Could it be the man who praises Martin Luther, the United
Nations and the Social Justice of Communist China? How about the man who
teaches that there are saints and martyrs in false religions, and that Holy
Communion should be given to heretics? How about the man who says that Masses
are valid which have no words of Consecration? Hmmm… the man who
declares that Christianity is the deep amazement at each man and that man is
the Christ, the Son of the Living God? Could it possibly be the man who
overturns the Council of Trent, gives donations and relics to non-Catholic
sects, and prays with the Jews for the coming of the Messiah?

Do the people at The Fatima Crusader and “Fr.” Paul
Kramer think that the Antipopes who will overtake Rome will carry signs saying:
“I am a heretic!” Do they think that they will announce to the people, “We are
the satanic antipopes who are to come!” Any sincere person aware of the facts
can immediately recognize that Antipope John Paul II, Antipope Bendict XVI and
Francis are “entirely without Catholic faith, entirely heretical…” John Paul
II denied the entire Catholic faith and approved of every false religion.Ratzinger
denies that Christ is the Messiah! And Francis (whom he currently holds as an
antipope) says that one doesn’t even have to believe in God to be saved!

Paul Kramer on the possibility of salvation for those who do not become
formal members of the Church

The Devil’s Final Battle,
compiled and edited by “Fr.” Paul Kramer, p. 69: “This teaching must not be
understood to preclude the possibility of salvation for those who do not become
formal members of the Church if, through no fault of their own, they do not
know of their objective obligation to do so… only God knows
whom He will save (in some extraordinary manner) from among the great mass
of humanity which has not exteriorly professed the Catholic religion.”

This statement is completely wrong. But before explaining
why, we will first look into the Church’s teaching concerning all validly
baptized Christians (Catholics) who outwardly adheres to non-Catholic sects but
that have not yet severed their membership from the Body of the Church since
they have not yet embraced any heresy (they are therefore Catholics in
non-Catholic churches).

Pope Pius XII, Mystici
Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave
it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of
the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

1) The Catholic Church has always taught that anyone
(including a layman or a non-Catholic) can validly baptize if he adheres to
proper matter and form and if he has the intention of doing what the Church
does.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of
Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439: “In case of necessity, however, not only a
priest or a deacon, but even a layman or woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic
can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention
of doing what the Church does.” (Denzinger 696)

The Church has always taught that infants baptized in
heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and
subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are
heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being
below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic. He cannot have an
impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent,
Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism: “If anyone shall say that
infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received
baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”

This means that all baptized infants wherever they are, even
those baptized in heretical non-Catholic churches by heretical ministers, are
made members of the Catholic Church. They are also made subject to the Roman
Pontiff (if there is one). So, at what one point does this baptized Catholic
infant become a non-Catholic – severing his membership in the Church and
subjection to the Roman Pontiff? After the baptized infant reaches the age
of reason, he or she becomes a heretic or a schismatic and severs his membership
in the Church and severs subjection to the Roman Pontiff when he or she
obstinately rejects any teaching of the Catholic Church or loses Faith
in the essential mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.

So, one must be clear on these points: 1) The unbaptized
(Jews, Muslims, Mormons, pagans, etc.) must all join the Catholic Church by
receiving valid Baptism and the Catholic Faith or they will all be lost.
2) Among those who are validly baptized as infants, they are made Catholics,
members of the Church and subjects of the Roman Pontiff by Baptism. They only
sever that membership (which they already possess) when they obstinately
reject any Catholic dogma or believe something contrary to the essential
mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, or something contrary to the Natural
Law. In the teaching of Pope Clement VI above, we see this second point clearly
taught: all who receive the Catholic Faith in Baptism lose that Faith and
become schismatic and heretical if they become “obstinately
separated from the faith of this Roman Church.”

Pope Clement VI, Super
quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and
the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those
who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards
have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same
Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical,
if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.
In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you
believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and
outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”

The fact is that all Protestants who obstinately reject the
Catholic Church or its dogmas on the sacraments, the Papacy, etc. have
separated from the Faith of the Roman Church and have therefore severed their
membership in the Church of Christ. The same is true with the “Eastern
Orthodox” who obstinately reject dogmas on the Papacy and Papal Infallibility.
They need to be converted to the Catholic Faith for salvation.

The baptized children who reach the age of reason (and
become adults) in Protestant, Eastern Schismatic, etc. church buildings and
believe in the Trinity and the Incarnation (the essential components of the
Catholic Faith) and who don’t reject any Catholic dogma because they don’t
know of any other than the Trinity and Incarnation, and who don’t
embrace any positions incompatible with the Catholic faith, Faith in God, Jesus
Christ, the Trinity, the Natural Law (see The Natural Law) or what they know to be
clearly taught in Scripture, WOULD BE CATHOLICS IN A HERETICAL CHURCH
BUILDING.

Council of Elvira, Canon 22, 300
A.D.: “If someone leaves the Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy,
and then returns again, it is determined that penance is not to be denied to
such a one, since he has acknowledged his sin. Let him do penance, then,
for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to communion. If,
indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have not sinned of
their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of
the Early Fathers, Vol. 1: 611n)

This means that the children above reason who were
attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents were not heretics
because they were not obstinately against something they knew to be taught by
the Church! This fact is also true of all people of all ages who go to a
heretical church without being obstinately opposed to any Church teaching.
This is exactly the Catholic position and what the Church has always taught (as
we will see) – which is that to be a heretic one must obstinately
reject something they know to be taught by God or the Catholic Church.

2) “Fr.” Paul Kramer's book is particularly pernicious, in
fact, because this book pretends to uphold the dogma Outside the Catholic
Church There is No Salvation and it will be read in “traditional circles” – all
the while rejecting the dogma. The truth of the fact is that it is a divinely
revealed truth that God will only save Catholics and those who become
Catholics. The statement above literally means that we just don’t know if
what God has revealed is true or not. And it shows how prevalent and
virulent the Objective-Subjective heresy is, finagling its way into all kinds
of places. The truth remains, however, that the Catholic Church teaches that
Church membership is necessary for salvation. It nowhere teaches what the
modern “teachers” love to say: that Church membership is objectively
necessary for salvation.

THE OBJECTIVE-SUBJECTIVE HERESY

OBJECTION-
Objectively speaking, there is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic
Church. But subjectively speaking, we just don’t know.

ANSWER-
This is similar to the
“You Can’t Judge” heresy. Those who advance this heresy deny dogmatic truth;
for the Objective-Subjective Heresy means that the dogma Outside the Church
There is No Salvation is only true “objectively,” which necessarily means that
non-Catholics can be saved “subjectively,” which means that the end result
is a denial of the defined dogma.

The
Objective-Subjective Heresy is just a clever way of saying that the dogma
Outside the Church There is No Salvation might not mean what it says. It’s
diabolical double-talk. It is equivalent to asserting:

“Jesus Christ is objectively the
Son of God.”

Could
a Catholic hold that? No, he could not, because Jesus Christ is not just objectively
the Son of God; He is the Son of God – period! But this is exactly what
those who hold the Objective-Subjective heresy are saying! For to say that one
dogma (Outside the Church There is No Salvation) is only true objectively
is to say that any other dogma (e.g., Jesus Christ is the Son of God) is only
true objectively. There is no way around this. The Objective-Subjective Heresy asserts
the heresy that dogmas are not really divinely revealed truths, but only
presumptions or policies that we go by, and this is condemned Modernism.

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The
Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #22: “The dogmas which the Church
professes as revealed are not truths fallen from heaven, but they are a
kind of interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind by a
laborious effort prepared for itself.”- Condemned statement

Pope Pius X, Lamentabile, The
Errors of the Modernists, July 3, 1907, #26: “The dogmas of faith are to be
held only according to a practical sense, that is, as preceptive norms for
action, but not as norms for believing.”- Condemned statement

The
idea that we can preach that there is no salvation outside the Church
while we believe in our hearts that there is salvation outside the Church or may
be salvation outside the Church is heretical. That only Catholics can be saved
is a truth revealed from heaven which every Catholic must believe first,
and profess second.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra: “The Holy Roman Church firmly
believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the
Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics,
cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church
before the end of their lives...”

Since
dogmas are truths fallen from heaven, to say that any dogma (e.g., the dogma
that all who die as non-Catholics are lost) may have a “subjective” reality
that is different from the revealed truth is heresy – it is a
denial of that truth. Therefore, the idea that subjectively
non-Catholics can be saved is blatant heresy; it is a denial of the revealed
truth that all who die as non-Catholics are necessarily lost.

The
same Objective-Subjective heresy was taught in the book The Devil’s Final
Battle, as we saw, which is promoted by a number of “traditionalist”
organizations.

PAUL KRAMER DENOUNCES "ALL FEENEYITES"

(Feeneyism is a term for the belief that water baptism is
absolutely necessary for salvation.)

On April 27, 2014, "Father" Kramer posted the
following heretical message on his Facebook account:

TO ALL FEENEYITES:

Your disagreement with the
infallibly defined doctrine of Baptism of Desire is as irrational as it is
heretical. You have no excuse: Justification takes place by the laver of
regeneration or the desire of it ("aut ejus voto"). The doctrine is
interpreted in that sense officially in the Roman Catechism. The doctrine of
baptism by "votum" is explained in the Roman Catechism by authotity
of the pope who presided over the latter sessions of the Council of Trent and
formulated by the most eminent Council Fathers of Trent, namely, St. Charles
Borromeo....

First of, even the baptism of
desire advocates themselves will agree that baptism of desire is not a
sacrament and that it is without water. But the problem with this is that the
Council of Trent infallibly defined as a dogma that THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
WITH WATER is necessary for salvation!

Pope
Paul III, The Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 5 on the Sacrament
of Baptism, ex cathedra: "If anyone says that baptism [the
Sacrament] is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation (cf. Jn. 3:5):
let him be anathema."

Concerning the Council of Trent
objection that “Fr.” Paul Kramer referred to, the following will be said in
response. Are the words of Jesus Christ in
John 3:5 ("Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of
water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.") to be
taken as they are written, or not as they are written?

All defenders of the theory of
baptism of desire must admit that they believe that John 3:5 is not to
be taken literally. They agree that baptism
of desire cannot be true if John 3:5 is understood as it is written. So the
question is: Does the Catholic Church understand John 3:5 as it is written
or not?

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4: "In these words there
is suggested a description of thejustification of the impious,
how there is a transition from that state in which a person is born as a child
of the first Adam to the state of grace and of adoption as sons of God through
the second Adam, Jesus Christ our savior; indeed, this transition, once the
gospel has been promulgated, CANNOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT THE LAVER
OF REGENERATION OR A DESIRE FOR IT, AS IT IS WRITTEN: UNLESS
A MAN BE BORN AGAIN OF WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE
KINGDOM OF GOD (JOHN 3:5)."

The reader can see very clearly
that the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as it is
written(Latin: sicutscriptum
est), thereby excluding any possibility of baptism of desire. Ironically,
the Council defines this in Sess. 6, Chap. 4, the very passage which baptism of
desire proponents quote all the time to favor their position. In fact, this
passage is brought up by baptism of desire proponents as their single strongest
– and perhaps only – argument from the Papal Magisterium. It is their
"trump card". Why do they think this?

First off, the baptism of desire
people believe that the use of the word "or" (Latin: aut) in
the above passage means that justification can take place
by the water of baptism or the desire for it. But a careful look at the passage
proves this to be false. The passage says that justification cannot take
place without the laver of regeneration (water baptism) or the desire for
it; in other words, both are necessary for those above the age of reason (as we
will see). Suppose I said, "This shower cannot take place without water
or the desire to take one." Does this mean that the shower takes place
by the desire to take a shower? Absolutely not. It means that both are
necessary. In fact, the Latin word aut ("or") is used in the
same way in other passages in the Council of Trent. In the introduction to the
decree on Justification, the Council strictly forbids anyone to "believe,
preach or teach" (credere, praedicare aut docere)
other than as it is defined and declared in the decree on Justification.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Introduction: "... the holy
ecumenical and general synod of Trent... strictly forbidding that anyone
henceforth may presume to believe, preach or teach, otherwise than is
defined and declared by this present decree."

Does "or" (aut)
in this passage mean that one is only forbidden to preach contrary to
the Council’s decree on justification, but one is allowed to teach contrary to
it? No, obviously "or" (aut) means that both preaching
and teaching are forbidden, just like in chapter 4 above "or"
means that justification cannot take place without both water and desire.
Another example of the use of aut to mean "and" (or
"both") in Trent is found in Sess. 21, Chap. 2, the decree on
Communion under both species (Denz. 931).

Pope
Pius IV, Council of Trent, Sess. 21, Chap. 2: "Therefore holy
mother Church... has approved this custom of communicating under either
species, and has decreed that it be considered as a law, which may not be
repudiated or be changed at will without the authority of the
Church."

Does aut in this
declaration mean that the Council’s decree may not be repudiated, but it may be
changed? No, obviously it means that both a repudiation and a change are
forbidden. This is another clear example of how the Latin word aut can
be used in contexts which render its meaning "and" or
"both". And these examples blow away the claim of baptism of
desire supporters: that the meaning of aut in Chapter 4, Session 6 is
one which favors baptism of desire to the exclusion of actually receiving
water baptism.

Second, the reader should note
that this passage from Trent has been horribly mistranslated in the popular
English version of Denzinger, the Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is cited
above.

The critical phrase, "this
transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot take place without
the laver of regeneration or a desire for it" has been mistranslated
to read: "this transition, once the gospel has been promulgated, cannot
take place except throughthe laver of regeneration or a desire for
it…" This mistranslation of the Latin word "sine" (without)
– which is found in the original Latin – to "except through"
completely alters the meaning of the passage to favor the error of baptism of
desire. This is important to keep in mind because this mistranslation is still
being used by baptism of desire apologists (often deliberately), including in
recent publications of the SSPX and CMRI.

Looking at a correct
translation, which is found in many books, the reader also should notice that,
in this passage, the Council of Trent teaches that John 3:5 is to be taken as
it is written (Latin: sicut
scriptum est), which excludes any possibility of salvation without being
born again of water in the Sacrament of Baptism. There is no way
that baptism of desire can be true if John 3:5 is to be taken as it is written,
because John 3:5 says that every man must be born again of water and the
Spirit to be saved, which is what the theory of baptism of desire denies. The
theory of baptism of desire and an interpretation of John 3:5 as it is written
are mutually exclusive (they cannot both be true at the same time) – and every
baptism of desire proponent will admit this. That is why all of them must – and
do – opt for a non-literal interpretation of John 3:5.

But why does Trent define that the
desire for Baptism, along with Baptism, is necessary for justification? Because
it is referring to both adults and infants receiving baptism. Therefore, in
this chapter Trent is dealing exclusively with those Catholics
under the age of reason (infants) who have not committed actual sins, and for
such infants receiving baptism only is necessary for justification;
while for those above the age of reason (adults) who have committed actual
sins, the desire for baptism (and godly contrition) in addition to actually
receiving baptism is necessary for justification.

The Council of Trent explains this
saving sorrow of mind that is necessary for adults "to attain to grace and
justice" before receiving baptism.

The
Council of Trent, Sess. 14, Chap. 1 on the necessity, and on the institution of
the Sacrament of Penance: "Penitence was in deed at all times
necessary, in order to attain to grace and justice, for all men who had
defiled themselves by any mortal sin, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO BEGGED TO BE WASHED
BY THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM; that so, their perverseness renounced and
amended, THEY MIGHT, WITH A HATRED OF SIN AND A GODLY SORROW OF MIND, DETEST
SO GREAT AN OFFENCE OF GOD."

The
Council of Trent, Session 14, Chap. 4 on Contrition: "Contrition, which
holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow
of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning
for the future. THIS MOVEMENT OF CONTRITION WAS AT ALL TIMES NECESSARY FOR
OBTAINING THE PARDON OF SINS..."

As we just saw infallibly defined
by the Council of Trent: "Penitence was in deed at all times necessary,
in order to attain to grace and justice, for all men who had defiled
themselves by any mortal sin, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO BEGGED TO BE WASHED BY THE
SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM; that so, their perverseness renounced and amended, THEY
MIGHT, WITH A HATRED OF SIN AND A GODLY SORROW OF MIND, DETEST SO GREAT AN
OFFENCE OF GOD." As we can see, they did not say that an
adult can be saved without a godly sorrow of mind (or with imperfect
contrition) even when being baptized, but rather said that this godly sorrow of
mind (perfect contrition) "was in deed at ALL TIMES NECESSARY, IN ORDER
TO ATTAIN TO GRACE AND JUSTICE... that so, their perverseness renounced and
amended [their life]..." (Session 14, Chapter 1)

Concerning adults. That is why the chapter defines that justification cannot
take place without the water of baptismorthe right desire
for it. Both are necessary. Not only a godly sorrow for
their sins is necessary, but also a right desire to actually receive baptism,
is necessary.

Catechism
of the Council of Trent, On Baptism -
Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first
place they [adults] must desire and intend to receive it…"

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 7: "Those
who receive Baptism - Reply to Objection 2: If an adult lack the
intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if
there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: "If thou art not
baptized, I baptize thee."

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 7:
"Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required
on the part of the one baptized? - According to the Church’s ritual, those
who are to be baptized ask of the Church that they may receive Baptism: and
thus they express their intention of receiving the sacrament. I answer
that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain
newness of life, according to Romans 6:4: "We are buried together
with" Christ "by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from
the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life." Consequently, just
as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will,
must, in order to die to the old life, "will to repent of his former
life"; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the
beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore
on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or
intention of receiving the sacrament."

Concerning infants. The Church has always taught that infants baptized in
heretical and schismatic churches are made Catholics, members of the Church and
subjects of the Roman Pontiff, even if the people who baptized them are
heretics who are outside the Catholic Church. This is because the infant, being
below the age of reason, cannot be a heretic or schismatic or have an intention
contrary to the validity or effect of baptism. Hence, he cannot have an
impediment which would prevent Baptism from making him a member of the Church.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 13 on the Sacrament of Baptism:
"If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual
faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the
faithful… let him be anathema."

St. Thomas Aquinas also explains
why infants does not need to have a desire for baptism and have contrition (or
penance as it is also called) as adults always must desire baptism and have
contrition in order to receive the full effect and validity of baptism.

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Q. 113,
Art. 3: "Whether for the justification of the ungodly is required a
movement of the free-will? - Reply to Objection 1. Infants are not capable
of the movement of their free-will; hence it is by the mere infusion of
their souls that God moves them to justice. Now this cannot be brought
about without a sacrament; because as original sin, from which they
are justified [after receiving baptism], does not come to them from their
own will, but by carnal generation [or from simply being born], so
also is grace given them [not from their own will but] by Christ through
spiritual regeneration [in baptism]. And the same reason holds good with
madmen and idiots that have never had the use of their free-will."

St.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Third Part, Q. 68, Art. 9: "Whether
children should be baptized? - I answer that, As the Apostle says (Romans
5:17), "if by one man’s offense death reigned through one," namely
Adam, "much more they who receive abundance of grace, and of the
gift, and of justice, shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ."
Now children contract original sin from the sin of Adam; which is made
clear by the fact that they are under the ban of death, which "passed upon
all" on account of the sin of the first man, as the Apostle says in the
same passage (Romans 5:12). Much more, therefore, can children receive grace
through Christ, so as to reign in eternal life. But our Lord Himself said
(John 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Consequently it became
necessary to baptize children, that, as in birth they incurred damnation
through Adam [through no will of their own] so in a second birth they might
obtain salvation through Christ [also through no will of their own]."

This means that all baptized
infants wherever they are, even those baptized in heretical non-Catholic
churches by heretical ministers, are made members of the Catholic Church. They
are also made subject to the Roman Pontiff (if there is one).

So, far from being in favor of baptism
of desire, this chapter of the Council of Trent actually goes against it. It
defines that justification of the impious cannot take place without the water
of baptism or the desire for it, and as we have seen, receiving water baptism
is always necessary for justification for both adults and infants alike. We
know this interpretation of this passage is correct, because if whatbaptism
of desire proponents say were correct, we would actually have the Council
teaching us in the first part of the sentence that John 3:5 is not to
be taken as it is written (desire sometimes suffices), while simultaneously
contradicting itself in the second part of the sentence by telling us to take
John 3:5 as it is written (sicutscriptumest)! But
this passage is infallible and there is no contradiction contained therein. So
let every baptism of desire supporter cease preaching that Sess. 6,
Chap. 4 teaches that justification "can" be effected by water
or desire to the exclusion of actually receiving water baptism, which is
certainly not what the Council says. Let them cease preaching that John
3:5 is not to be taken AS IT IS WRITTEN: "Amen, amen I say to
thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot
enter the kingdom of God." Let them cease quoting the horrible
mistranslation of this passage as it is found in Denzinger (which many of them
continue obstinately to do after it has been pointed out to them). And
furthermore, let not these people think that they justify themselves
before the all-knowing God by ignoring the above facts and continuing to
obstinately assert that Sess. 6, Chap. 4 definitely teaches baptism of
desire for salvation to the exclusion of actually receiving water baptism.
They cannot be justified asserting this even by quoting famous Church
theologians, who were mistaken in good faith; for God did not give the charism
of infallibility to theologians, however great, but to St. Peter and his
successors (the popes) alone (Lk. 22:31-32).

Some baptism of desire supporters
also bring forward Sess. 7, Can. 4 on the Sacraments to somehow try to prove
baptism of desire. But it’s obvious that this canon does not teach that either
the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for justification,
as some claim, but that it condemns those who assert that neither the
sacraments nor the desire for them is necessary for justification, and that faith
alone suffices. It does not affirm that either is sufficient, but condemns
those who assert that neither is necessary.

An awkward translation of this
canon, as well as the mistaken notion that Trent teaches baptism of desire in
another place in Trent (which has already been refuted), has led to this
erroneous assertion. In fact, we will see that the truth is just the opposite
of what the baptism of desire advocates claim. Let’s take a look at the canon.

Pope
Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 7, Can. 4, On the Sacraments: "If anyone
says that the sacraments of the new law are not necessary for salvation but are
superfluous, and that people obtain the grace of justification from God
without them or a desire for them, by faith alone, though all are not
necessary for each individual [only baptism is necessary absolutely]: let him
be anathema."

When one carefully examines this
canon, he sees that it is not declaring that either the sacraments or
the desire for them is sufficient for justification; but rather it is
condemning those who would say that neither the sacraments nor the desire for
them is necessary for justification. I repeat, it is notdeclaring
that either is sufficient; it is condemning those who
would say neither is necessary. Precisely, it is condemning those who
would say that neither is necessary and that faith alone
suffices.

Consider the following canon that
I have made up: "If anyone says that the Virgin Mary possesses the
Queenship of Heaven without God’s permission or her being worthy of it,
but assumes this Queenship by usurpation alone, let him be anathema."

The sentence construction of this
imaginary canon is similar to the canon we are discussing. Consider it
carefully. After considering it, I ask: does this canon mean that the Blessed
Mother possesses her Queenship solely by "her being worthy of it"?
No, she must also have God’s permission. The canon does not say that either
"her being worthy of it" or "God’s permission" is
sufficient for Mary to possess the Queenship. Rather, it condemns
those who would say that neither "God’s
permission" nor "her being worthy of it" is
necessary. In other words, the canon is condemning those who would say that both
God’s permission and Mary’s worthiness are useless, since she assumes the
Queenship by usurping it.

Likewise, canon 4 above does
not say that either the sacraments or the desire for them is sufficient for
justification; it condemns those who would say that both the sacraments and the
desire are unnecessary in obtaining justification, since faith alone is all one
needs. Canon 4 does not in any way teach the possibility of baptism of desire.

It is also quite interesting to
consider that whereas the Council of Trent never teaches baptism
of desire, it teaches no less than three times (twice in Sess. 6,
Chap. 14 and once in Sess. 14, Chap. 4) that the desire for the Sacrament of
Penance (if a person has perfect contrition) can suffice for justification
before Penance is actually received. This efficacy of the desire for the
Sacrament of Penance is mentioned three times, but the supposed efficacy of the
desire for baptism (baptism of desire) is not mentioned at all. This should
indicate something to those who believe in baptism of desire: God didn’t allow
it to be taught in the infallible Council of Trent or any other Council or even
in any Papal encyclical in the history of the Church, because it is an
erroneous theory. John 3:5 is true exactly as it is written (Trent,
Sess. 6, Chap. 4). If the concept of baptism of desire were a true teaching of
the Church, then the Council of Trent definitely would have included it in the
canons on Baptism or in the chapters on Justification. But it’s nowhere to be
found. It’s also noteworthy that the terms baptism of desire and baptism of
blood are not found anywhere even in The Catechism of the Council of Trent
- contrary to what many assert.

Comment

I was glad to hear that
"Fr" Kramer rejected antipope Francis. However it's sad that he still
blinds himself to the other five apostate antipopes. I listened to a talk by
Kramer and another quite well known priest from years ago. The talk was on the
Antichrist and the False Prophet. They both believed the false prophet would be
an antipope. Listening to this talk is a very strange experience. They mention
so many things that the false prophet/Antichrist would do for people to know
who they are. Everything they mention fits John Paul II (Antichrist) and
Benedict XVI (False Prophet). Here are some quotes said by Kramer and the other
priest.

"Masonry will install an
antipope… Saints have predicted an Antipope. It's going to happen in the very
near future."

Kramer: "The antipope will
distinguish himself as an apostate, not by saying 'I'm not a catholic' he won't
be as open as that, he would not accomplish his purpose. The Catholic faithful
will be able to know that, that man is not a true pope by means of his actions
which will be very clearly acts of apostasy." (JP2/B16 Assisi?)

"It has been foretold that
there will be a worldwide super "church" an ecumenical umbrella"
(V2 "Church"?).

Other priest: "Yes father,
and what he will do is simply recognize all other churches as being equal to
the Catholic Church. He will simply, perhaps not even in words. But by his
actions he will accept all other religions as valid, though alternate ways of
worshiping God."

Now here comes the nonsense
Kramer says "So far nothing like this has happened yet." He then
mentions Assisi and that John Paul II whom he calls "holy father"
learned his lesson. Which is funny because years later antipope John Paul II
held another apostate Assisi meeting. Yet Kramer didn't catch on then?

It's truly mind blowing that he
rejects Francis as an antipope but accepts the others. I don't know what to
make of it. Hopefully he might take your material seriously and come around.

You bring up some very good points… You write: “He then
mentions Assisi and that John Paul II whom he calls "holy father"
learned his lesson. Which is funny because years later antipope John Paul II
held another apostate Assisi meeting. Yet Kramer didn't catch on then?” The
answer is that at some point they knew those antipopes fit the very description
they gave of apostate false popes. But since they serve man and Satan instead
of God, they simply don’t tell the truth as it is. Instead, they conform and
change the message to make it more palatable to people.

As someone else recently wrote in and said: “ "Fr."
Kramer's realization on sedevacantism is somewhat like "realizing"
Noah's flood on the 39th day of rain…”

Comment

It's inexplicable to me how Paul
Kramer can recognize Francis as an antipope but not the previous antipopes,
especially JP2 and Benedict XVI. Antipope John Paul II reigned for 27 years and
during that time he committed so many acts of public and manifest heresy and
taught heresy from the pulpit and yet Kramer could not recognize him as an
antipope. I think JP2 was much worse than Francis probably because he reigned
for such a long time, which gave him ample time to reveal his true colors.
Benedict XVI came along and he too committed public acts of apostasy in word
and deed. Yet he accepted Benedict as pope. Then Francis comes along. He has
been reigning for just a short time and Kramer recognizes him as an antipope?
In the mind of Paul Kramer, I wonder how he sees Francis different from the
previous antipopes. There is essentially no difference …

Yes, it’s outrageously illogical and dishonest. He knows
that Francis cannot be considered a true pope (and that the sedevacantist
position is true), but he simply doesn’t want to admit that he was wrong about
Benedict XVI, etc. Thus, he pretends as if Antipope Francis has just now
crossed some line (or taught some manifest heresy) that the others did not,
when that is clearly not the case. They were all manifest heretics. Vatican II
itself, which was authoritatively promulgated by Antipope Paul VI and endorsed
by the other antipopes, formally and officially teaches the very heresy Kramer
(rightly) believes proves that Francis is not the pope.

Comment

As one was reading your
e-exchanges one happens to come across the post about Fr. Kramer and how he
realized that Francis is an antipope along with the comments so with that note
you mentioned that he still believed in the salvation outside the
church/BOD/BOB etc. and that is just too sad and I know that we desired his
conversion and with that regard one hopes along with the remnant of Catholics
for his conversion…

Comment

Thank you for the post about
"Fr." Paul Kramer accepting the sedevacantist position.
Unfortunately, Kramer appears to be unbending about believing that there is to
be only one antipope ruling from Rome, rather than six. As you said, Kramer
should have been convinced years ago. The heresies gushing out of the Vatican
have all been just as obvious and opposed to Catholic teaching as Francis'
recent one in Evangelii Gaudium, that the "Jewish covenant with God has
never been revoked." MHFM's work proves many times over that Vatican II is
full of such heresies. The pride of false traditionalists like "Fr."
Paul Kramer and "Fr." Nicholas Gruner is shocking. It shows they
don't care about the faith, but only about man and his opinions. Hopefully
Kramer's move will help some to move out of the dark and into the light of the
true positions of the Catholic faith.

Ecclesiasticus 5:8,9 -
"Delay not to be converted to the Lord, and defer it not from day to day.
For his wrath shall come on a sudden, and in the time of vengeance he will
destroy thee."

Copyright: All videos and articles on our site are free to copy and share for free. Please remember to also include live links to the source of the info.
We are looking for translators who have the skill to make a good translation of important articles for the salvation of souls. We are also in need of translators who can translate Saint Bridget's Revelations into different languages. If you can help us on this important work, please contact us here.
We need your help! We are spending all the time our expenses among things like websites, webhotels, and giving away free material, dvds and books in order to warn people and tell them the truth. So if you like the material and want to help us—and be yourself a sharer—in saving souls, then please make a donation, pray for us and help us spread it in order to help our beloved brothers and sisters who have not found this information yet. If you have been graced by God with the means to do so, please support our work. Any donation that you can give is highly appreciated and much needed! Help us help our beloved brothers' and sisters' souls. Your Support Counts! All for the Glory of God and the salvation of souls! Please click here!
"And whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, amen I say to you, he shall not lose his reward." Matthew 10:42